The testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper at the National Pencil Company, was a major portion of the second and third weeks of the Leo Frank trial. Cross-examination alone amounted to some 13 hours.

55. Much is made by Frank partisans of Georgia Governor Slaton’s 1915 decision to commute Frank’s sentence from death by hanging to life imprisonment. But when Slaton issued his commutation order, he specifically stated that he was sustaining Frank’s conviction and the guilty verdict of the judge and jury: “In my judgement, by granting a commutation in this case, I am sustaining the jury, the judge, and the appellate tribunals, and at the same time am discharging that duty which is placed on me by the Constitution of the State.” He also added, of Jim Conley’s testimony that Frank had admitted to killing Mary Phagan and enlisted Conley’s help in moving the body: “It is hard to conceive that any man’s power of fabrication of minute details could reach that which Conley showed, unless it be the truth.”

The following points get at Frank and Conley’s special relationship before the murder:

81. The relationship of Leo Frank and the National Pencil Company to Jim Conley was a strange one. Why was Jim Conley’s sweeper’s salary much higher — $6.05 versus $4.05 — than the average of the white employees, many of whom were skilled machine operators? Could it be that Conley served a very important but secret purpose for Leo Frank, exactly as the prosecution alleged? Could he have had knowledge that could potentially hurt Leo Frank, justifying Frank granting him special privileges?

82. According to a female National Pencil Company employee, Jim Conley was once caught “sprinkling” (urinating) on the pencils, surely a very serious offense. But Conley was never fired. (Trial Testimony of Herbert George Schiff, Brief of Evidence, Leo Frank Trial, August, 1913) Again, could it be that James Conley served a very important but secret purpose for Leo Frank, and could he have possessed knowledge that could damage Frank?

83. According to fellow employee Gordon Bailey (Leo Frank trial, Brief of Evidence, August, 1913) Jim Conley was not always required to punch the time clock. Why would the “Negro sweeper,” as they called him, surely the lowest-ranking employee in the pencil factory hierarchy, be given such an unprecedented privilege by Leo M. Frank? Why was Jim Conley the only person out of the 170 factory employees who didn’t have to punch the time clock — unless Jim Conley was more than meets the eye?

Prior to the trial, Jim Conley had made one admission after another under the withering blast of police interrogation. He would make three statements in all, in each one admitting to more and more participation in the crime. Despite his slow, reluctant, and grudging admissions — and the obvious contradictions among his initial affidavits — investigators, and even some who had been doubtful about Conley’s account, were finally convinced that they had gotten the truth out of him. Police and factory officials accompanied Conley when he was brought back to the scene of the crime. Conley guided them through the factory and recounted and re-enacted the events of April 26, 1913 — the day of the murder — step by step as he had experienced them. The account was so minute in its details, so consistent with the known facts, so precisely matched with evidence which Conley could not possibly have known about unless he had really been there, and presented in such an open and frank manner that even skeptics were convinced by it.

Conley’s own explanation:

As to why I didn’t tell it all, I didn’t want to tell it all. I was intending to hold back some. I didn’t want to tell it all right at one time. I just told a little and kept back a little. Yes, and Mr. Dorsey went down seven times while I was telling some and holding back some. They didn’t ask me to take back any stories. No, it didn’t take Mr. Dorsey seven times to tell the story. Yes, I said I added to it every time he went down. But he wouldn’t came back and try to do anything with it.

Frank’s defenders had their chance to question Conley, and the jury still found him credible:

Conley held up well under the ferocious attack of the defense. He freely admitted that he had been confused on a few occasions and had lied in his first two statements — first, to protect himself, and second to protect Frank, who he still expected would come up with bail money and get him out of town — and he also provided a wealth of new detail about Leo Frank’s “chats” with young women.

Frank’s defenders tried to play one group of goyim against another:

At one point, Frank’s attorney Luther Rosser, referring to the recent haircut and clean set of clothes that Conley had been given, snidely remarked “They put some new clothes on you so the jury could see you like a dressed-up nigger” — possibly inflaming racial feelings among the all-White jury. It was widely believed at the time that Conley would be disbelieved by many simply because he was black and because Leo Frank, a white man, and Frank’s attorneys would contradict Conley and accuse him of the murder — a woe be unto any black man in 1913 Atlanta accused of harming a white girl.

Nevertheless Conley, a simple and poorly educated man, gave not an inch on his most damaging claims against Frank even when the most skilled attorneys money could buy cross-questioned him for more than 13 hours.

Herbert G. Schiff, the factory’s assistant superintendent directly under Leo Frank, then testified, stating that he’d never seen women brought to the office as the prosecution had alleged, nor had he seen Conley “watching” for Frank. He stated that he, not Frank, had paid off Helen Ferguson the Friday before the murder, and that Ferguson has not asked for Mary Phagan’s pay. He also went into excruciating detail — thousands of words’ worth — about how the books were kept at the factory, with the unstated implication being that Frank would have simply been too busy calculating sums and making entries to have entertained young ladies — or killed them. This “too busy” line of reasoning would be returned to again and again by the defense, and would form the larger part of Leo Frank’s own statement in his own defense. It was reinforced by the next witness, public accountant Joel Hunter, and yet another accountant, C.E. Pollard.

Several workers at the factory, testifying for the defense, said they’d never seen Leo Frank talking to Mary Phagan, that they’d never seen him with women in his office after hours, and that Conley’s reputation for veracity was bad. One of them, Iora Small, went further, volunteering for the benefit of the all-white jury that “I don’t know of any nigger on earth that I would believe on oath.”

Prosecution witnesses claimed they saw X. Rather than directly attack the veracity of that testimony the defense tried to cloud the issue by producing witnesses who claimed they didn’t see X. The jury, who heard both sides in full detail, found X more credible than not-X.

The motives of Frank’s defenders, including the witnesses who testified in his favor, have at least three components: ethnic jewish loyalty, employer/financial fealty, and “white” racial solidarity (i.e. Whites mistaking jews as comrade “whites”).

The lengthy parade of sworn witnesses, called by both sides, is itself mute testimony to the fact that Leo Frank, vice president of his college debate club, would not testify under oath so as to avoid direct questioning in front of the jury.

In my view there is no real evidence against [Leo] Frank. All the so-called evidence comes from Conley, the man who wrote the notes found with the body, and who was CONVICTED AS AN ACCESSORY TO THE MURDER. No attempt was made to imitate the victim’s handwriting, but the police were supposed to find the notes, believe they were written by the victim during commission of the crime, and throw suspicion on a “long tall black negro” (Conley was short and powerfully built).

The police weren’t stupid enough to believe that the victim wrote the notes, but they were stupid enough to believe Conley when he claimed that Frank “dictated” the notes. Why the hell would Frank do that? How the hell COULD he do that? Would you do that if YOU committed a murder? Then they were stupid enough to coach Conley in his testimony for weeks and months to frame Frank for the murder! There is no question that Conley wrote the notes.

Whoever wrote those notes committed the murder. Conley could commit the murder without Frank, but Frank could not commit the murder without Conley.

Frank produced almost 40 witnesses who testified that Conley was a notorious liar. He was also a habitual petty criminal and drunkard who had been on the chain gang several times.

I repeat: if you committed a murder, would YOU write notes like that? Would you DICTATE notes like that? COULD you dictate notes like that? Would you believe a semi-literate drunkard who claimed he wrote those notes because they were dictated by an educated man?

It proves that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

They convicted him to show that “Georgia justice cannot be bought and sold with Jew money from New York”.

I don’t entirely trust anything on the Internet about the Frank case. In most ways, the commutation file is the best.

The circumstantial evidence, in my mind, is inconclusive; so is the character evidence. If Frank had been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, the case would be unclear. The evidence provided by Conley — particularly, the death notes — proves, in my view, that Frank’s guilt is not only out of the question, but absolutely impossible.

That’s the way I feel today, and I’ve felt that way for 30 years.

From the arguments and evidence I have considered so far, I think Frank was guilty. I’m still willing to examine arguments and evidence to the contrary, but in this case the notion that inconclusive evidence can prove anything, much less prove it absolutely, seems particularly ridiculous.

Porter’s argument in favor of Frank is reminiscent of Johnny Cochran’s infamous closing argument in defense of O.J. Simpson: “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. The gist of it is to focus on one aspect of the prosecution’s case, claim there is something wrong with it, and jump to the conclusion that the defendent must be innocent.

Stephen Goldfarb used a similar kind of illogic in “Framed” (discussed in The Murder of Mary Phagan – Part 4). Goldfarb makes the outrageous attempt to paint Harry Scott and Hugh Dorsey as scoundrels in order to exhonerate Frank. Porter selects Conley, a far easier mark, for the same end.

The essence of Porter’s argument is: 1) Frank was convicted only because of Conley’s testimony, 2) Conley wrote the murder notes, 3) Conley was a liar, 4) Conley lied about Frank dictating the murder notes, therefore 5) “Frank’s guilt is not only out of the question, but absolutely impossible”.

Point 1, Porter’s assertion that “there is no real evidence against [Leo] Frank. All the so-called evidence comes from Conley”, is plainly false. Conley’s testimony played a critical, perhaps even decisive role in Frank’s conviction, but it was not the only evidence presented against Frank. Frank was arrested and indicted before it was known who wrote the murder notes, much less who conceived them or why. Porter himself points approvingly to Slaton, who described other important evidence against Frank that was unrelated to Conley.

Points 2 and 3 were conceded by Conley and known to the jury.

Point 4 is the heart of Porter’s argument. It is indeed plausible that Conley decided what to write. Frank may have only suggested that Conley write something implicating someone else. Conley might have even come up with the idea himself. Perhaps at first Conley understood the notes as a way to help save his boss, but lied about in court to help implicate his boss because by then it had become clear he needed to save himself.

So what? Even if there is truth in such speculation, it is not necessarily incompatible with the rest of Conley’s story, much less the prosecution’s overall case against Frank.

18 Responses

You need remedial reading instruction. I have discussed the evidence. I have anticipated and answered your objection and new theory, as follows:

Frank cannot have dictated those notes. At most he could have said, “Hey Jim, why don’t you write a couple of notes and pretend you’re the girl and say a tall slim negro did it, since you’re short and stocky”? “OK Boss”. What would be the point to that? Why would Conley agree to do that — for any amount of money? As soon as the word got out that Conley wrote the notes, it would logically be assumed (under normal circumstances) that Conley committed the murder, and his life wouldn’t be worth a plugged nickel. Unless they believed him. The notes would lead the cops to Conley and Conley would accuse Frank, which is exactly what happened according to the people who think Frank was guilty. If you committed a murder you’d leave the body alone, you’d know any note would be linked to the killer.
If it weren’t for the notes it is quite probable that no one would have realized that Conley was even in the factory that day.
People who believe Frank was guilty do not like to discuss the notes in any detail, because logically they prove that Frank was innocent. It is sometimes alleged that the notes were “dictated” in “negro slang” in an apparent attempt to “throw suspicion on the “night watchman”, Newt Lee. A pretty stupid stunt in view of the fact that the victim was a white girl who was supposed to have written the notes herself during commission of the crime (“I wright while play with me”) — quite apart from the obvious fact that the second note states plainly that the “night witch” didn’t do it.
About three quarters of the witnesses, including George Epps and most of the factory girls, later signed sworn affidavits admitting that they had perjured themselves. This did not constitute grounds for a new trial under Georgia law. [Oney, pp. 372-73, 389, 418]). Neither did new evidence. The only grounds for a new trial were “errors in law”. Since there were no “errors in law” (they saw to that — after that, they convicted him, didn’t they?) — everything was kosher and the sentence could be upheld 13 times, all the way to the Supreme Court and back, with a lot of double-talk. Typical lawyer stuff.
George Epps was such a fantastic liar that he claimed to be able to tell the time to within seven minutes by the sun (ibid, p. 198).
Frank never told Newt Lee to stay out of the basement, which was normally inspected every half hour (ibid, p. 202).
To sum up:
There were 2 notes, only one of which mentions the “night wich”. Even if “night wich” means “night watch”, instead of “night witch”, a common element of African folklore, a clear distinction is still made between the “night wich” and the “long, tall negro black”. They are clearly 2 different entities or people. The same note says the “night wich” didn’t do it. What is the sense of that? There were 2 notes, only one of which mentions the “night wich”. Why write 2?
A Negro would automatically be suspected of the crime. What difference would it make to Frank which one?
How would the notes implicate Newt Lee, the night watchman, if they were in Conley’s handwriting? The notes led the police to Conley, who led the police to Frank. Anyone could have predicted this. Or did Frank think the police would think they were written by the victim during the act of rape? “I wright while play with me”. What is the sense of that?
If Frank was guilty, and Conley knew it, or even had any evidence of Frank’s guilt, he was in a position to blackmail Frank for very large sums of money. Conley could have lived a life of luxurious drunkenness for the rest of his days. Why put his head in a noose for a few dollars? What criminal “dictates” a note leading the police straight to his accomplice? What is the logic of this?
I repeat: those who disagree with me can answer one question: how would the notes implicate Newt Lee, the night watchman, if they were in Conley’s handwriting?
I await an answer…

Secondly, I concentrate on those notes simply because they are the only that cannot be argued both ways. There is no proof that there was hair on the lathe handle; no proof that it was Phagan’s hair; no proof that there was blood on the floor of the metal room; no proof that it was Phagan’s blood; no proof that Monteen Stover arrived at 12:05; no proof that she could see into the inner office from the outer office (does that make sense? What would be the point of an inner office?); no proof that Frank said “we will both go to hell”, and so on. It all cancels out. Every “fact” cited at one point is contradicted by another “fact” cited at another point, usually by the prosecution’s own witnesses.
I did not link to JR Rauner’s version of the Commutation File, but, rather, to my own transcription, which contains a detailed footnote by myself explaining the “we will both go to hell” remark.
Slaton was a politician and the file contains a lot of double-talk, for the simple reason that he didn’t want to make his constituents any madder then necessary. As it was, he had to call out the National Guard; for four nights, the woods behind his house was full of armed men trying to break into the house; then when you cite obvious instances of intimidation, such as the Minola McKnight fiasco, or the Alonzo Mann episode, or Frank’s nervousness, and, later, his silence, you are told that you are being silly.

The webmaster of the LeoFrank.org site spent about six weeks arguing with me about the case and about those notes in particular. At one point, he admitted to me that “those notes are an absurdity”. I pounced immediately, and said, “so, you admit that you believe in an absurdity?”
You know what he did? He changed the subject. This is what people ALWAYS do when you mention those notes. They run away. That is why I concentrate on them. I asked a question. I want an answer.
Other than that, I have discussed all major aspects of the case, even the thickness of Frank’s glasses.
Your file by Bradford L. Huie is not a reliable source of fact. Huie spent his life running down the Klan, segregation and the South, in that order, and glorifying the Negro into something he never was and never will be. He is a liberal, which means to say, a liar.
I do not like Jews and do not care what happens to them. If you’re going to hang Frank, please be my guest. But hang him for something he deserves, like exploiting child labour and hiring Pinkertons with Jew money from up north. Than hang Conley for murdering the girl, and then we all live happily ever after.
Finally I would not believe the various Jewish writers on the case if the victim’s niece, Mary Phagan, did not say exactly the same things, even more. For example, she points out that Conley admitted that was so drunk that Saturday he couldn’t remember anything he did. This is an important point: he had no consciousness of guilt because he couldn’t remember anything. You say he stood up to 13 hours of cross-examination. A remarkable achievement, but he was coached by the police for an entire week, which I take to mean, up to about 100 hours of coaching. They even shouted in his face exactly as they knew the prosecutor would do. So when the prosecutor did it, he just grinned.

So, after 100 years of claiming that Frank “dictated” the notes,
the story is now, he didn’t dictate them, Conley was told to use his
own language! This is a real first!

What purpose would that serve? How would he even describe it to Conley?

“Hey, Conley, take this paper and pencil, and take these forms, which are only ever found in the basement anyway, see, and write a couple of notes. You pretend you’re the girl, see, and she’s writing these notes while she’s getting murdered. They’re naturally going to blame a nigger, so you say she was killed by a nigger that doesn’t look like you, say he was tall and thin, you know, use your own words in your usual crazy nigger talk. That way, they’ll blame a nigger, which they’ll do anyway, but somebody else, until they find these notes are in your handwriting, which they will as soon as they see the Annie Maude Carter notes, after which they’ll blame you and you’ll blame me, and one or the other of us will hang, maybe both of us, but don’t worry, I’m a Jew, I can say I’m just being persecuted for my religion. Don’t forget to say that the ‘night witch’ DIDN’T DO IT, and, oh, don’t forget to mention a ‘HOLE’ although that doesn’t make any sense if I murdered the girl instead of you. Do a good job and I’ll give you 200 bucks.”
Does anybody believe this?

I asked a question: How would the notes throw suspicion on Lee if they were in Conley’s handwriting? Why would the cops believe that Newt Lee wrote a note pretending to be the murdered girl? And so on. I want an answer.

I would also like some proof that Frank, the big boss, in this huge factory, would have to walk what looks like hundreds of feet to use the toilet, an employee toilet, if I recall correctly, when he’s the big boss of this whole huge factory. You prove there was no other toilet and then we’ll argue about where it was. None of the books I’ve read contain these huge complicated diagrams about where the toilet was. Monteen Stover was arrested in a “beaver” scam in 1917; whether that affects her reliability as a witness in 1913, I leave to you. I am inclined to believe that it does.

I would also like some proof that Conley was paid more than a skilled machinist. The LeoFrank.org site makes all sorts of sensational claims of this sort without any references. They continually cite “facts” which are not “facts” at all, because they are contradicted by the prosecution’s own witnesses.
I also note that the same site possesses the complete Annie Maude Carter letters, but have never posted them, and there appears to be no way to find any reference to the so-called “Death Notes” anywhere on the site. They have a minuscule thumbnail of the “Death Notes”, but to find it you have to google “LeoFrank.org death notes”. Then you get the thumbnail but no explanation. That is not honest. Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas. At any rate Huie is not reliable.

My footnote on the “we will both go to hell” remark from my transcription of the Slaton file:

There are two versions of what was said. For a detailed account of this incident, see Oney, AND THE DEAD SHALL RISE, pp. 69-70 (compare Phagan, THE MURDER OF LITTLE MARY PHAGAN, p. 58, Golden, A LITTLE GIRL IS DEAD, p. 50). Personally, I find Frank’s account of the conversation more logical. Even if Frank was guilty, Newt Lee was innocent. Why would Frank say, “we will both go to hell”? Frank claimed he said, “You will get us both into lots of trouble”, which is logical, and consistent with innocence. Frank was later asked to speak to Conley in jail and refused on the grounds that he saw that everything he said was being distorted.

Actually, what happened was this: three Pinkertons told Frank to talk to Lee, saying, “‘Tell him that you are here and that he is here and that he better open up and tell all he knows… or you will both go to hell’. Those were the detectives’ exact words” (emphasis added).

Frank then spoke to Lee and said, “Now, Newt, you are here and I am here, and you had better open up and tell all you know, and tell the truth and tell the full truth, because you will get us both into lots of trouble if you don’t tell all you know.” The great genius detectives, three of them, then “remembered” Frank using their own words exactly, including “[we] will both go to hell” [!!]. A beautiful example of the fragility and unreliability of human memory. Now, the moral of the story, little boys and girls, is: never trust a cop — or private flatfoot — and never say anything in front of a cop without a lawyer present. See Oney, p. 69.

Mary Phagan (the victim’s great-niece) notes that the affidavit of the cook (that Frank said he was going to buy a gun and shoot himself because he had murdered a young girl), was plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper in the state; but that when the affidavit was retracted, the retraction was printed in a very small notice on the inside pages, so that nobody ever saw it (Phagan, p. 58: “It seems that while her original statement made the front pages of the newspapers, her repudiation was printed unobtrusively on an inside page.”).

I had a lengthy correspondence with Mary Phagan about twenty years ago. She was very warm to me, answering all my questions, and saying “call me Mary”. When I told her I thought Frank was innocent I never heard from her again.

When I read Phagan’s book I expected a completely devastating refutation of Golden’s book, a completely different version of the facts. That was not what I found. If anything, I thought Phagan added other, even more devastating, but very subtle, details indicating that Frank was innocent. There may or may not be a few contradictions as to minor details, but none as to the essential facts. Not that I could see. I read Phagan’s book with a particularly open mind because, politically, I would much prefer to believe that Frank was guilty. But I just don’t see it, and I never have. I have never understood anyone believing Conley for an instant.

The circumstantial evidence, in my mind, is inconclusive; so is the character evidence. If Frank had been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, the case would be unclear. The evidence provided by Conley — particularly, the death notes — proves, in my view, that Frank’s guilt is not only out of the question, but absolutely impossible.

That’s the way I feel today, and I’ve felt that way for 30 years.

There is a very interesting spin on all of this: if you think Frank was guilty, you are an “anti-Semite”; if you think Conley was guilty, you are a “racist”. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
–http://www.cwporter.com/slaton.htm

I repeat: Frank was not lynched because he was Jewish. He is REMEMBERED because he was Jewish. Nobody cares about the 11 Italians lynched at one go in New Orleans in the 1890s, one of whom was only 14 years old; but we hear a deafening chorus about Frank for 100 years. How about 50 TV shows, books and films about those 11 Italians?

I know I will be accused of confusing Huie with the LeoFrank.org site. I do not.

I say this because this is the way Nizkor (an anti-revisionist site run by homosexual paedophiles) likes to muck things up: create a misunderstanding, then carry on forever pretending that this is the main point.

You need remedial reading instruction. I have discussed the evidence. I have anticipated and answered your objection and new theory

I believe I properly comprehend your argument. The bulk of it is dedicated to restating in slightly different ways the simple fact you personally are convinced that Frank could not have been the murderer, and that you cannot imagine how he could be.

Frank cannot have dictated those notes.

I agree it’s not likely he did.

At most he could have said, “Hey Jim, why don’t you write a couple of notes and pretend you’re the girl and say a tall slim negro did it, since you’re short and stocky”? “OK Boss”. What would be the point to that? Why would Conley agree to do that — for any amount of money?

This is quite typical of your method of argument. You describe a possibility, then immediately imply you can’t understand how or why it could be true. It is less an argument against the possibility than it is evidence that you personally are not interested in considering it. This method gives the appearence of considering possibilities when all it really amounts to is rejecting them out of hand.

In this case, for example, the point of Frank requesting Conley write a note could have been to direct suspicion away from himself. He may have hoped to cloud the investiagation and create exactly the kind of doubt and confusion you express. As you have emphasized elsewhere, Conley was relatively dim-witted. I don’t find it difficult to imagine him going along with such a request out of some combination of respect, money and stupidity. I also don’t find it difficult to imagine that afterward he realized he was at risk, and that to save himself he would lie to cover his role and instead more thoroughly implicate Frank. For this reason I think that even if Conley’s dictation claim was a lie it still wouldn’t change the basic structure of his story, that he was an accessory after the fact to Frank. Nor would this alter the rest of the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, I can even imagine the jury was willing to think through the questions you won’t, and suspected Conley was lying on that point, but for the reasons I’ve described or otherwise, regarded it as irrelevant in light of everything else they heard.

Repetition and details asides, your argument boils down to a non sequitur: Conley wrote the notes and lied about it, therefore Frank must be innocent. Your conclusion regarding Frank’s guilt – “not only out of the question, but absolutely impossible” – strikes me instead as an unshakable premise. As you wrote elsewhere, “Personally, I think Frank was innocent and I’ve thought so for 30 years.” That I believe. Unfortunately, your explanation why has failed to convince me to agree with you.

A Negro would automatically be suspected of the crime. What difference would it make to Frank which one?
—————–
That’s easy. The difference, perhaps, of going free? He had to pick the negro with the most likely evidence against him. Therefore it would be quite important which one he choose.

How would the notes implicate Newt Lee, the night watchman, if they were in Conley’s handwriting? The notes led the police to Conley, who led the police to Frank. Anyone could have predicted this. Or did Frank think the police would think they were written by the victim during the act of rape? “I wright while play with me”. What is the sense of that?
—————-
The senselessness of it would be the whole idea and therefore point to a dumb negro and away from Frank.

If Frank was guilty, and Conley knew it, or even had any evidence of Frank’s guilt, he was in a position to blackmail Frank for very large sums of money. Conley could have lived a life of luxurious drunkenness for the rest of his days.
——————
But such blackmail couldn’t possibly work as there had to be murderer somewhere there in the woodpile. And I don’t think that even a dumb, drunkard negro could imagine he could out-jew a jew and then live in luxury, untouched.

Most likely he was simply going along with his ‘boss-man’ and would be grateful to come out alive with a few bucks.

Why put his head in a noose for a few dollars?
——————
I don’t think it was a case of him putting his head willingly in a noose for a few dollars, it was more likely a case of keeping his head out of a noose for a few dollars.

What criminal “dictates” a note leading the police straight to his accomplice? What is the logic of this?
—————-
The logic is this: When an intelligent, amoral man sees he is likely cornered and has few options, is desperate and has a handy black patsy there to take the blame, and will have the backing of his tribe behind him.

Well, I am able to understand yours. My argument is that you haven’t demonstrated what you claim to “prove” – that Frank’s guilt is “absolutely impossible”. Slaton, whom you cite as your main authority, argued doubt, not innocence.

On another point, accomplice testimony must be corroborated. Where is the corroboration?

Did Slaton argue this? Why didn’t any of the appeals catch it? Were Frank’s attorneys inept? Are you the only one making this point? Could it be because you’re the one who misunderstands a subtlety of the law in this case, rather than everyone else?

You can think what you like. I don’t give a damn.

Likewise. I’m not trying to change your mind. You have made it crystal clear that you are convinced Frank was innocent and have been for decades. I’m only saying your flatly stated assertions and unwillingness to think otherwise isn’t an argument which convinces me. You can do with that feedback whatever you wish.

You haven’t answered my question. I knew you wouldn’t.

You have insisted Conley and his notes are the most important issue. You say others run away from this issue. I’m not trying to change the subject. You are.

You asked what the point would be for Frank to ask Conley to write those notes. I provided a reasonable answer. Frank might have thought it would serve his interests and Conley might not have seen how it might harm his, at least until later. Has it really never occurred to you that Frank might have wanted to sow exactly the kind of doubt and confusion you and others have used to argue his innocence?

You ask many similar questions to which I could provide similar answers. I see no point in doing so. They’re rhetorical questions. You ask them because you’ve convinced yourself they don’t have answers.

Wherever a physical fact is stated by Conley, which is admitted, this can be accepted, but under both the rules of law and common sense, his statements cannot be received, excepting where clearly corroborated. He admits not only his participation as an accessory, but also glibly confesses his own infamy.

Slaton then dedicates pages 10 – 22 (more than 1/3 of his 29 page letter) to scrutinizing Conley’s testimony in light of a variety of corroboration and contradiction. It is the centerpiece of Slaton’s argument.

The bolded portion above was highlighted by Porter, which indicates why he misconstrues ALL of Conley’s testimony as legally worthless. He discounts the import of the first portion of what Slaton said, thus he discounts even the portions of Conley’s testimony which were corroborated, either by evidence or by the testimony of others.

Conflicting evidence and testimony is perfectly normal in legal disputes, and juries are expected to resolve such issues as a matter of course. Porter’s notion that conflicts “cancel out” is common, but not the only resolution. Slaton and the Frank jury did not simply throw out both sides of any conflicting account. Instead they decided that in some cases, including some involving Conley, they believed one account more than the other. This too is normal. The bottom line is that they believed the totality of what Conley and others claimed over what Frank and his supporters claimed.

Regarding Porter’s rhetorical questions on Conley’s murder notes…

Starting on page 19, Slaton argues that Frank did not dictate the notes. Slaton did not argue that this, together with everything else he considered, “proved” Frank’s guilt was “absolutely impossible”. That is Porter’s leap. Slaton saw and described only enough doubt in Frank’s guilt to justify the legal technicality he used to alter Frank’s punishment. As far as I can see Porter doesn’t add any new or substantial fact or argument to Slaton’s analysis to justify his far more extreme conclusion.

I repeat: how could the notes implicate Lee if they were in Conley’s handwriting?

1) If the idea for the notes came from Frank, why would he care who gets blamed as long as it’s not him?
2) If the idea was Conley’s, it’s likely he didn’t consider that the notes would implicate himself based on his handwriting. He was a dumb drunkard, remember?
3) Conley probably wrote “long tall black negro” because even a dumb drunkard can be mindful enough that he should try to implicate someone other than himself.
4) You yourself have pointed out that the notes don’t necessarily implicate Lee. So what?

In other words, from the self-interested view of either Frank or Conley, either one could reasonably believe the notes would direct suspicion away from themselves.

But answer came there none…

You’re making a fool enough of yourself by pretending nobody is answering you. If you’re not willing to engage what I’ve said or written rather than pretending nobody has responded or that you can’t understand it, then I’m not going to make a fool of myself by letting this idiocy of yours go any farther.

Conley was a drunk, he would at best hid the body. The only possible reason I can see him writing a note would be in his belief in authoritative Frank’s superior intelligence. That belief in Frank’s authoritative,sober and superior intelligence would be the only plausible motivation for Conley to go along with it. Conley’s non cooperation would put Frank in a corner, in Conley’s subservient mind, knew he would be no match in a finger pointing contest with Frank.